@PaulSimon
Firstly, US will not leave Afghanistan. US presence in Afghanistan is very important to keep an eye on Russia and China.
US wants a deal from Pakistan/Taliban to continue its presence.
In return, US is willing to give Pakistan/Taliban control of Afghanistan but Pakistan also wanted Kashmir on the table.
US is willing to give the Kashmir valley to Pakistan if Pakistan will go into a tight alliance with the US. In return Pakistan is also asking US to reciprocate. That is US has to give up India while Pakistan will give up China.
Once the deal is done, India is bound to lose Kashmir valley with Pakistan/Taliban putting military pressure on India while US, West and Islamic World will put its diplomatic weight behind Pakistan/Taliban.
Pakistan/Taliban will not have to worry about US or the West at all.
Russia will support India but it will not matter much other than providing a veto in UNSC.
If the U.S. would give up India, how will they counter China?
By having two military bases in Afghanistan?
That is not enough.
The U.S. knows that to counter China, they need India as an ally in the region.
They will not give India up for Pakistan and two military bases in Afghanistan.
At this time India's main concern is how to secure Kashmir from falling to Pakistan/Taliban. Afghanistan is least of India's worries.
@Jyotish
In order to stop Kashmir from falling into the hands of Pakistan / Taliban, it is important for India to have an (indirect) presence in Afghanistan. Proxies could keep the Taliban and Pakistan busy and thereby prevent them from focusing on Kashmir.
@Longhorn
Which then risks the enemy taking that proxy war where you wouldn't want it.
Always be careful what you wish for.
Well, I am not wishing for anything actually.
I was more talking in general.
But where do you think Pakistan would take that proxy war?
Khalistan, Naxalites, North East India, Dravidistan?
They all seem to be either dead movements or under control by the Indian government.
@M.Bison
@Jyotish
The whole point is that it is not economically viable because India was unsuccessful within Afghanistan.
Secondly in the past India did not capitulate to the pressures of the Americans or Israelis when it came to Irani Oil exports but recently India has decided to downgrade her relations with Iran.
Ok.
No not at all, I don't think Pakistan will Post troops within Afghanistan because it doesn't need to. Pakistan is on the side of the winning team.
Well, yes, Pakistan is on the side of the Taliban. But how much control does Pakistan have on the Taliban?
The Taliban is not as isolated as they used to be. They have foreign relations with Russia, Iran, Uzbekistan and China and are therefore less reliant on Pakistan.
Iran is also the biggest trading partner of Afghanistan, surpassing Pakistan.
They might need Iran more than Pakistan.
Unfortunately, Pakistan does not have the manpower to fight India in a conventional long-term battle. This upcoming war will first become nuclear then it will be a war of attrition and I believe Pakistan the economy, the expertise, and the will to fight that type of war.
I do not think that either the India, Pakistan or the international community think lightly of the use of nuclear weapons as many members of this forum do. They will be more careful and less impulsive than PDF members.
BJP was here before the INC. Don't forget that the Hindu right is the one that assassinated Gandhi. This ideology did not spring up overnight and had to be organized even before India was an actual idea.
You are right, India cannot remain a pseudo-secular nation. The ruse of secularism kept Indians united under one flag but all that is changing. As the radicals get into power and the establishment becomes more neurotic minorities will start to feel disenfranchised. It is actually a blessing in disguise because as the Hindu right rises in power, India will go deeper and deeper into turmoil. Sadly the Hindu right is just as corrupt as the secularist if not more so but they galvanize the Hindus against the Muslims. This hate-mongering will only last for so long until the populace wakes up.
That is not correct.
The BJP was founded in 1980. The party was a successor of the Janata Party (founded in 1977) which itself was a successor of the Bharatiya Jana Sangh, which was founded in 1951.
The Indian National Congress was founded in 1885.
So, the INC was here before the BJP and their precursors.
And if you meant the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), then that organisation was founded in 1925.
So, the INC also existed before the RSS.
But I agree with the rest of what you said.
If the BJP cares for India they should work on uniting and not dividing India.
Minority appeasement is wrong and not secular, but majority (Hindu) appeasement is also wrong and not secular.
No appeasement and real secularism is the only option.
@Fawadqasim1
It won't not for long now
I do not fully understand what you are saying.
Could you rewrite your sentence?